(newscientist.com)171
Theoretical physicist Sankar Das Sarma wrote a thought-provoking essay for New Scientist magazine's Lost in Space-Time newsletter:I was recently reading an old article by string theorist Robbert Dijkgraaf in Quanta Magazine entitled "There are no laws of physics". You might think it a bit odd for a physicist to argue that there are no laws of physics but I agree with him. In fact, not only do I agree with him, I think that my field is all the better for it. And I hope to convince you of this too.
First things first. What we often call laws of physics are really just consistent mathematical theories that seem to match some parts of nature. This is as true for Newton's laws of motion as it is for Einstein's theories of relativity, Schrödinger's and Dirac's equations in quantum physics or even string theory. So these aren't really laws as such, but instead precise and consistent ways of describing the reality we see. This should be obvious from the fact that these laws are not static; they evolve as our empirical knowledge of the universe improves.
Here's the thing. Despite many scientists viewing their role as uncovering these ultimate laws, I just don't believe they exist.... I know from my 40 years of experience in working on real-life physical phenomena that the whole idea of an ultimate law based on an equation using just the building blocks and fundamental forces is unworkable and essentially a fantasy. We never know precisely which equation describes a particular laboratory situation. Instead, we always have to build models and approximations to describe each phenomenon even when we know that the equation controlling it is ultimately some form of the Schrödinger equation!
Even with quantum mechanics, space and time are variables that have to be "put in by hand," the article argues, "when space and time should come out naturally from any ultimate law of physics. This has remained perhaps the greatest mystery in fundamental physics with no solution in sight...."
"It is difficult to imagine that a thousand years from now physicists will still use quantum mechanics as the fundamental description of nature.... I see no particular reason that our description of how the physical universe seems to work should reach the pinnacle suddenly in the beginning of the 21st century and become stuck forever at quantum mechanics. That would be a truly depressing thought...!"
"Our understanding of the physical world must continue indefinitely, unimpeded by the search for ultimate laws. Laws of physics continuously evolve — they will never be ultimate."
Sunday December 11, 2022
Theoretical physicist Sankar Das Sarma wrote a thought-provoking essay for New Scientist magazine's Lost in Space-Time newsletter:I was recently reading an old article by string theorist Robbert Dijkgraaf in Quanta Magazine entitled "There are no laws of physics". You might think it a bit odd for a physicist to argue that there are no laws of physics but I agree with him. In fact, not only do I agree with him, I think that my field is all the better for it. And I hope to convince you of this too.
First things first. What we often call laws of physics are really just consistent mathematical theories that seem to match some parts of nature. This is as true for Newton's laws of motion as it is for Einstein's theories of relativity, Schrödinger's and Dirac's equations in quantum physics or even string theory. So these aren't really laws as such, but instead precise and consistent ways of describing the reality we see. This should be obvious from the fact that these laws are not static; they evolve as our empirical knowledge of the universe improves.
Here's the thing. Despite many scientists viewing their role as uncovering these ultimate laws, I just don't believe they exist.... I know from my 40 years of experience in working on real-life physical phenomena that the whole idea of an ultimate law based on an equation using just the building blocks and fundamental forces is unworkable and essentially a fantasy. We never know precisely which equation describes a particular laboratory situation. Instead, we always have to build models and approximations to describe each phenomenon even when we know that the equation controlling it is ultimately some form of the Schrödinger equation!
Even with quantum mechanics, space and time are variables that have to be "put in by hand," the article argues, "when space and time should come out naturally from any ultimate law of physics. This has remained perhaps the greatest mystery in fundamental physics with no solution in sight...."
"It is difficult to imagine that a thousand years from now physicists will still use quantum mechanics as the fundamental description of nature.... I see no particular reason that our description of how the physical universe seems to work should reach the pinnacle suddenly in the beginning of the 21st century and become stuck forever at quantum mechanics. That would be a truly depressing thought...!"
"Our understanding of the physical world must continue indefinitely, unimpeded by the search for ultimate laws. Laws of physics continuously evolve — they will never be ultimate."
PHYSICIST SAYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST
"LIKE PEELING AN INFINITE ONION, THE MORE WE PEEL, THE MORE THERE IS TO PEEL."
Galaxy Brain
The majority of physicists live under the assumption of a strict and immutable set of laws that govern the universe — but not all.
"What we often call laws of physics are really just consistent mathematical theories that seem to match some parts of nature," theoretical physicist Sankar Das Sarma writes in the beginning of a must-read new column in New Scientist column. These laws of physics are meant to describe our shared reality, even if they "evolve as our empirical knowledge of the universe improves."
"Here’s the thing," Sarma continues. "Despite many scientists viewing their role as uncovering these ultimate laws, I just don’t believe they exist."
Prior to Albert Einstein's groundbreaking — and ultimately unfinished — attempts to create a theory of everything, and all the leaps in fields like quantum mechanics that followed, the physicist argues, such an assertion wouldn't have seemed outlandish.
Indeed, Sarma says he finds it "amazing" that humans "can make sense of some aspects of the universe through the laws of physics" at all.
"As we discover more about nature, we can hone our descriptions of it, but it is never-ending," he writes. "Like peeling an infinite onion, the more we peel, the more there is to peel."
Multiverse Madness
Pointing to the concept of the multiverse, or an infinite number of universes, Sarma ponders how humans could have such hubris as to imagine that the apparent rules that seem to govern our reality would apply in every universe.
Raising a theoretical argument, Sarma adds that even in the face of a theory as substantial as quantum mechanics, which he describes as being "more like a set of rules that we use to express our laws rather than being an ultimate law itself," there remain too many mysteries and variables to ever consider this so-called fundamental theory sacrosanct.
"It is difficult to imagine that a thousand years from now physicists will still use quantum mechanics as the fundamental description of nature," he continues. "Something else should replace quantum mechanics by that time just as quantum mechanics itself replaced Newtonian mechanics."
What that replacement may be, Sarma declines to speculate. But he nevertheless sees "no particular reason that our description of how the physical universe seems to work should reach the pinnacle suddenly in the beginning of the 21st century and become stuck forever at quantum mechanics."
"That would," he adds, "be a truly depressing thought!"
"LIKE PEELING AN INFINITE ONION, THE MORE WE PEEL, THE MORE THERE IS TO PEEL."
Galaxy Brain
The majority of physicists live under the assumption of a strict and immutable set of laws that govern the universe — but not all.
"What we often call laws of physics are really just consistent mathematical theories that seem to match some parts of nature," theoretical physicist Sankar Das Sarma writes in the beginning of a must-read new column in New Scientist column. These laws of physics are meant to describe our shared reality, even if they "evolve as our empirical knowledge of the universe improves."
"Here’s the thing," Sarma continues. "Despite many scientists viewing their role as uncovering these ultimate laws, I just don’t believe they exist."
Prior to Albert Einstein's groundbreaking — and ultimately unfinished — attempts to create a theory of everything, and all the leaps in fields like quantum mechanics that followed, the physicist argues, such an assertion wouldn't have seemed outlandish.
Indeed, Sarma says he finds it "amazing" that humans "can make sense of some aspects of the universe through the laws of physics" at all.
"As we discover more about nature, we can hone our descriptions of it, but it is never-ending," he writes. "Like peeling an infinite onion, the more we peel, the more there is to peel."
Multiverse Madness
Pointing to the concept of the multiverse, or an infinite number of universes, Sarma ponders how humans could have such hubris as to imagine that the apparent rules that seem to govern our reality would apply in every universe.
Raising a theoretical argument, Sarma adds that even in the face of a theory as substantial as quantum mechanics, which he describes as being "more like a set of rules that we use to express our laws rather than being an ultimate law itself," there remain too many mysteries and variables to ever consider this so-called fundamental theory sacrosanct.
"It is difficult to imagine that a thousand years from now physicists will still use quantum mechanics as the fundamental description of nature," he continues. "Something else should replace quantum mechanics by that time just as quantum mechanics itself replaced Newtonian mechanics."
What that replacement may be, Sarma declines to speculate. But he nevertheless sees "no particular reason that our description of how the physical universe seems to work should reach the pinnacle suddenly in the beginning of the 21st century and become stuck forever at quantum mechanics."
"That would," he adds, "be a truly depressing thought!"
No comments:
Post a Comment